There was nothing wrong with his use of "moral." Nothing about morality is inherently supernatural.

Thanks for that! I wish more people understood that religion does not precede morality.

& I'm a girl, btw. Everyone on this forum keeps calling me a dude

Your rhetoric is off. Sorry. Metaphysics precedes morality. You can't prescribe to a morality without prescribing to a metaphysics. You have to go by faith to determine right vs. wrong as there is no absolute existential truth behind either without that faith. You can, however, acknowledge that morality exists without prescribing to its truths, thus being ethical.

This is why you should never admit to being an atheist by the way. Nobody likes a self-acknowledged and trumpeted atheist because they're a walking argument.

Very misleading use of the word faith. The kind of faith that you're talking about is not religious faith. It's just the faith that's involved in making basic assumptions such as "the world exists" or "murder is wrong." You can be moral without being religious, even if it requires that you make assumptions.

Very misleading use of the word faith. The kind of faith that you're talking about is not religious faith. It's just the faith that's involved in making basic assumptions such as "the world exists" or "murder is wrong." You can be moral without being religious, even if it requires that you make assumptions.

I'd say this is a slippery slope into a form of religion.

Anyways, we can argue infinatum as with any religion, or anti-religion, and nobody will reach any sort conclusion. I think I touched on why atheism is such a polarizing topic. You want to be vanilla in your apps unless its a reach for you. In reality putting atheist is no different than putting Christian, Buddhist, or Scientologist except that it is popularly unaccepted.

YCR, you're just mad that your Law School Predictor failed me. J/k. You didn't know that until now.

Very misleading use of the word faith. The kind of faith that you're talking about is not religious faith. It's just the faith that's involved in making basic assumptions such as "the world exists" or "murder is wrong." You can be moral without being religious, even if it requires that you make assumptions.

I'd say this is a slippery slope into a form of religion.

So, when I assume that physical objects exists I'm on a slippery slope that will lead me to believing in God? Just to be clear, is that what you're claiming?

Sorry to ask, but what is the point of the Atheist Student Alliance? I'm actually curious, not looking to argue. For some reason I keep imagining scenes from the South Park episode Go God Go XII. Was it a super religious school?

erniesto wrote:Anyways, we can argue infinatum as with any religion, or anti-religion, and nobody will reach any sort conclusion.

I wasn't attempting to spark a religious argument, just noting that considering oneself 'moral' in no way implies believing in any supernatural entity. You incorrectly stated that it did. The word 'moral' etymologically implies conforming to societal customs. Ethical, on the other hand, implies knowing right and wrong. The involvement of a supernatural entity in Kantian morality doesn't necessitate the same for all such systems. I personally prefer Sartre's view of morality anyway, and you can't get much more atheistic than Sartre.

I'm not familiar with Sartre's works on morality, I'll have to check it out now that I have all this free time until August. I am under the assumption that ethics nominates the study and acceptance of the existence of morality, not the knowing of right and wrong.

In my understanding of ethics there is no right or wrong outside of social values ie: religious values. I suppose you could make an argument for social morality, though I think you would have a hard time separating those morals from a traditional religious framework. Now this is of course coming from a relativist framework.

KennyG wrote:Sorry to ask, but what is the point of the Atheist Student Alliance? I'm actually curious, not looking to argue. For some reason I keep imagining scenes from the South Park episode Go God Go XII. Was it a super religious school?

Haha, no. I see where you'd get that impression though, the name is ridiculous. It's actually a very large and popular group on campus. We do a lot of completely unrelated volunteering for all sorts of things, and a few members with a lot more free time than I've got have been going to a local city's commission and speaking about a push to drop the invocation from meetings. But generally, I guess the point is just to grab a voice among all of the different religious organizations.

erniesto wrote:Anyways, we can argue infinatum as with any religion, or anti-religion, and nobody will reach any sort conclusion.

I wasn't attempting to spark a religious argument, just noting that considering oneself 'moral' in no way implies believing in any supernatural entity. You incorrectly stated that it did. The word 'moral' etymologically implies conforming to societal customs. Ethical, on the other hand, implies knowing right and wrong. The involvement of a supernatural entity in Kantian morality doesn't necessitate the same for all such systems. I personally prefer Sartre's view of morality anyway, and you can't get much more atheistic than Sartre.

I'm not familiar with Sartre's works on morality, I'll have to check it out now that I have all this free time until August. I am under the assumption that ethics nominates the study and acceptance of the existence of morality, not the knowing of right and wrong.

In my understanding of ethics there is no right or wrong outside of social values ie: religious values. I suppose you could make an argument for social morality, though I think you would have a hard time separating those morals from a traditional religious framework. Now this is of course coming from a relativist framework.

I'll be honest that I've read very little about different ethical or moral philosophies, but coming from my science background, the concept of right and wrong exists because they're simply necessary for survival. If we all went around killing each other, humanity simply wouldn't exist. It's generally the same in the rest of the animal kingdom. Animals tend to kill only outside of their own species, and the most social animals share very, very many of our own moral ideologies, even if they may not be conscious of them. Some are even much better at practicing kindness, monogamy, etc. than many of the most moral humans.

I see very little value in most of the morals outlined in traditional religious framework. Most religious texts I've read are overridden with behaviors that any sane person would deem abhorrent. I also want to include that this isn't a reason not to subscribe to a faith, just the way I perceive the relation between religion and morality. I think morality exists because it's necessary for living beings to thrive, not because they were dictated by a deity. If people were born without ingrained moral behavior, reading the Bible surely wouldn't teach it to them.

Religion can be a great moral guide, however, but typically only when it's interpreted and taught by a naturally moral person.

to OP: I highly doubt that simply listing it as an extracurricular will hurt you, religious or not, most people are sensible enough to not label you as an anti-religion crusader. Obviously it would at Liberty, but their stated mission statement is to train Christian lawyers, so it's like you would want to fit that bill anyways.